Carnell
Collier ("Appellant") appeals the October 27, 2017
judgment of the Civil Service Commission ("CSC")
denying his appeal of his termination from his permanent,
classified employment at the Sewerage and Water Board of New
Orleans. While we agree with the CSC's finding that legal
cause existed for taking disciplinary against Appellant,
because we find that the punishment imposed - termination -
was not commensurate with the offense, we reverse.

FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant
was a classified, permanent employee who worked as a Quality
Assurance and Safety Inspector ("QASI") in the
Networks Division of the Sewerage and Water Board of New
Orleans ("S&WB") at all times relevant to this
matter. A QASI is a senior-level position in the Networks
Division, and Appellant supervised approximately fifty
employees at the time of the alleged misconduct.

The
record reflects that on September 6, 2015, Appellant engaged
in gambling in a building referred to as the "Labor
Shack" on S&WB property. At the time of the
incident, approximately sixty current and former S&WB
employees were gathered in the Labor Shack to celebrate the
retirement of a co-worker. The events of September 6, 2015
came to light when an anonymous letter and pictures were sent
to Appellant's Supervisor, Engineering Division Manager
Steve Bass ("Bass"). Based upon his review of the
letter and pictures, Bass believed that Appellant was
gambling on S&WB property, at a party attended by
S&WB employees, several of whom Appellant supervised.
According to his testimony, on October 24, 2015, Appellant
was called into Bass's office to address a separate
disciplinary incident, involving Appellant's unauthorized
use of a S&WB vehicle to haul personal trash, as well as
the gambling incident. Subsequently, he received a 48-day
suspension for the unauthorized vehicle use
infraction.[1]

On
February 4, 2016, the S&WB conducted a pre-termination
hearing related solely to the gambling infraction presided
over by Bass.

A
notice of the hearing had been issued to Appellant via
certified mail, although he apparently did not receive it. He
did receive a call from Bass on February 3, 2016, during
which Bass notified Appellant that the pre-termination
hearing was scheduled for the following day. The purpose of
the pre-termination hearing was to provide Appellant an
opportunity to respond to the allegation he had been gambling
with other S&WB employees, on S&WB property, during a
party attended by numerous S&WB employees. Appellant
acknowledged that, prior to the pre-termination hearing, he
was notified of the allegations against him as well as the
contemplated level of discipline.[2]

At the
hearing, Appellant initially denied gambling at the
retirement party. However, when presented with photographs of
himself gambling at the event, Appellant acknowledged his
actions. Bass offered Appellant an opportunity to respond to
the allegations or provide any documents or evidence relevant
to the allegations, and Appellant requested time to provide a
written statement, which was granted. Appellant submitted a
statement later that day, in which he acknowledged that he
participated in an illegal act, but asked Bass and S&WB
Executive Director Cedric Grant ("Grant") to take
into account his twenty-one years of dedicated service when
deciding on Appellant's discipline.

Following
the hearing, the S&WB terminated Appellant's
employment effective Wednesday, February 24, 2016, in
accordance with Civil Service Rule IX, Section 1, for
committing acts to the prejudice of the S&WB. In the
termination letter, the S&WB noted that Appellant had
admitted to engaging in gambling activities on S&WB
property while attending the retirement party of a fellow
S&WB employee, and that at the time of the misconduct,
Appellant was a supervisor and the senior ranking employee;
as such, his conduct set a standard for other employees.

On
March 9, 2016, Appellant filed an appeal of his dismissal
with the City Civil Service. On September 1, 2016, at
Appellant's request, his appeal was continued while
settlement was explored. Apparently unsuccessful in this
regard, on June ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.